The Nuts On The Tunica Telecast

[Big Mike Watters 0]

DANIEL NEGREANU OF LAS VEGAS, NVLifetime Winnnings: $7,462,668 *GREG RAYMER OF STONINGHAM, CTLifetime Winnnings: $5,689,136 *Take away the lucky $5 Mil...and DN has him crushed.DN is 10 times the poker player Raymer is...and I think Raymer is good. DN is just that much better. And younger. By the time DN is Doyle's age...

[bengy3 0]

One is a world champion. One is not.

So is Craig Counsell. He is a much better shortstop than Miguel Tejada.

I think this is the reason that there needs to be some sort of qualifying events in order to be involved in the "Main Event". Too many people only believe what they hear on ESPN and think that World Champion of Poker = the best of the best. This is actually only one tournament. What should actually be looked at is the Player of the Year for that year as I believe DN won that when Raymer won the ME (correct me if I'm wrong here). AS far as figuring out the best of the best one only needs to look to the best high stakes game, but for Tournament Poker and being able to just say that one is a world champion is redonkulous. So basically you are saying that:Joseph Hachem, Greg Raymer, Chirs Moneymaker, and Robert Varkoni are all better players than DN because they are "world champions". You are delusional.My .02

Actually, it's just a strong argument against Darwinism.

[silkyjonson 1]

ahhhh im holding back from this one cuz i respect raymer's apology..........................

[brvheart 1,757]

DanielGregI agree with you Aliaya... I would diffinately rather be Greg. He's clearly WAY better.

[Alina 0]

IJoseph Hachem, Greg Raymer, Chirs Moneymaker, and Robert Varkoni are all better players than DN because they are "world champions". You are delusional.My .02

By your reasoning, you cannot establish someone as good at all, which is a tenable position.For myself, I'll assume Mike Tyson was a pretty decent fighter, Federer can actually play tennis etc.Presumably, the reason people herethink DN is good is because he's won things. But of course if someone you don't like wins the World Series Main Event that doesn't count. If that's how you want to define it then fine. Here's a suggestion:Part of the criteria for poker greatnesss is to have the unitials DN.

[dapokerbum 0]

One is a world champion. One is not.

Yes but this was your reasoning which is what i was replying to. Please I know it is hard to understand but GL in the future

[brvheart 1,757]

By your reasoning, you cannot establish someone as good at all, which is a tenable position.For myself, I'll assume Mike Tyson was a pretty decent fighter, Federer can actually play tennis etc.Presumably, the reason people herethink DN is good is because he's won things. But of course if someone you don't like wins the World Series Main Event that doesn't count. If that's how you want to define it then fine. Here's a suggestion:Part of the criteria for poker greatnesss is to have the unitials DN.

Obviously long term results are what matters... did you click the links I provided yet?

[Alina 0]

Yes but this was your reasoning which is what i was replying to. Please I know it is hard to understand but GL in the future

That is not a normative statement but a statement of simple fact. Good luck to you too.

[dapokerbum 0]

That is not a normative statement but a statement of simple fact. Good luck to you too.

Look obviously you have just come here to argue. There are many people who have given you the reasons that DN is better. Had you said Chip Reese is a better player than DN then maybe people would have said well maybe because we really don't know how much money that guy has made. but to say Greg Raymer is better becasue he won one tournament and is "world Champion" is actually retarded.But whatever you won't listen anyway you just want to argue.

[_Great_Dane_ 0]

I did miss that. I am surprised by this.You may continue if you wish. I certainly will...DN claims (perhaps even truthfully) he played 4k/8k with best players in the world and presumably held his own. I do not know. I will stick to the verfiable facts...FACT: Raymer=world champion and has won more tourney money than DN.FACT: DN has not even made the final table at the ME.

Fact:Daniel Negreanu $7,462,668 Greg Raymer $5,689,136 Fact: Daniel has made more final tables in WPT and WSOP (including circuit tournaments) including Daniel's three WSOP bracelet wins.Let's stick to the facts.

[Alina 0]

Look obviously you have just come here to argue. There are many people who have given you the reasons that DN is better. Had you said Chip Reese is a better player than DN then maybe people would have said well maybe because we really don't know how much money that guy has made. but to say Greg Raymer is better becasue he won one tournament and is "world Champion" is actually retarded.But whatever you won't listen anyway you just want to argue.

I think to most people claiming that a world champion is better than someone who is not a world champion is at the very least an arguable position and far from retarded. You seem to be very dogmatic on this point. If I understand you correctly, you are discounting Raymer's accomplishment as an abberation of luck. On that basis, poker is simply luck and then you are correct that it is pointless to argue, because we might as well argue who is the best bingo player.

[bengy3 0]

I think to most people claiming that a world champion is better than someone who is not a world champion is at the very least an arguable position and far from retarded. You seem to be very dogmatic on this point. If I understand you correctly, you are discounting Raymer's accomplishment as an abberation of luck. On that basis, poker is simply luck and then you are correct that it is pointless to argue, because we might as well argue who is the best bingo player.

Hi Most People, I'm Bryan. Nice to meet you.

[Alina 0]

Hi Most People, I'm Bryan. Nice to meet you.

You too.

[dapokerbum 0]

I think to most people claiming that a world champion is better than someone who is not a world champion is at the very least an arguable position and far from retarded. You seem to be very dogmatic on this point. If I understand you correctly, you are discounting Raymer's accomplishment as an abberation of luck. On that basis, poker is simply luck and then you are correct that it is pointless to argue, because we might as well argue who is the best bingo player.

HOLY COW!!! Do you even listen or do you just make stuff up. YOU are saying that GR is better than DN. YOU are saying it is becasue he is world champion. WE are telling you that it is not one tournament that decides who is the best tournament player in the world. Here's the deal:Put GR in 1,000 tournaments and put DN in the same 1,000 tournaments. Who do you think is going to place better and more consistently than the other? It is by far going to be DN. If you don't believe that then good on ya but ya gotta think long term for poker you can't just see the here and now.

[skimbot 0]

I did miss that. I am surprised by this.You may continue if you wish. I certainly will...DN claims (perhaps even truthfully) he played 4k/8k with best players in the world and presumably held his own. I do not know. I will stick to the verfiable facts...FACT: Raymer=world champion and has won more tourney money than DN.FACT: DN has not even made the final table at the ME.

As far as I know the World Poker Championship was won by Xuyen Pham. I don't think Raymer even played.

[Dice_3008 1]

But of course if someone you don't like wins the World Series Main Event that doesn't count. If that's how you want to define it then fine.

Nobody said Raymer isn't good. I think most agreed he is pretty solid. Your argument is Raymer is better than DN and we have more than proven, WITH FACTS, that is not a true statement. Move along now smarty...

ahhhh im holding back from this one cuz i respect raymer's apology..........................

Silky, when did Raymer apologize? Do you have a link?

[Zilla 0]

So is Craig Counsell. He is a much better shortstop than Miguel Tejada.

That's the best line of the entire thread...

[Craftsy21 0]

By your reasoning, you cannot establish someone as good at all, which is a tenable position.For myself, I'll assume Mike Tyson was a pretty decent fighter, Federer can actually play tennis etc.Presumably, the reason people herethink DN is good is because he's won things. But of course if someone you don't like wins the World Series Main Event that doesn't count. If that's how you want to define it then fine. Here's a suggestion:Part of the criteria for poker greatnesss is to have the unitials DN.

How does somebody who's using words like "normative', "aberration"(with one b, two r's by the way), and "tenable".... spell the word "initials" with a U??????????? Thesaurus much douchebag? I always find it funny when people use big book-learned words and misspell them. Anyways - sounds like your argument is going well bud - keep up the good work, troll.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

The antagonist's arguement is drawing a conclusion much like the "witch scene" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The best poker player being whoever has more success in the main event is essentially the same as saying that if someone weighs the same as a duck, they must be a witch.The main event is one tournament of dozens of major tournaments each year, and tournaments are only one aspect of poker success. The main event had an $86m prize pool, but far more than $86m has changed hands on the tables at the Bellagio poker room alone in the last year. Furthermore, the main event is only one style of poker. Full table no limit hold em, which again is a subset of dozens and dozens of forms of poker.Every great poker mind, from Sklansky to Brunson and everyone in between, will attest that poker success comes from long term correct decision making. What goes in to those correct decisions can be described as poker skill. Using a single metric, out of all of the above things I mentioned, to determine who is a better poker player, could not be a more flawed arguement. Throughout this thread, people have listed off accomplishments that Daniel can hang his hat on that Raymer cannot. A short list:# of world series bracelets won# of world poker tour events won# of major tournament final tablesDN has won the Unites States Poker Championshipamount of money won in tournamentsCard player, world poker tour, and World Series of Poker player of the year accoladesDN worked his way up to playing in the biggest regular game in the world (and unless he really likes paying taxes for no reason, is very much a winner in that game), literally wrote the book on a form of poker (2-7 triple draw lowball), and is widely regarded by other top pros as one of the best.In the only heads up match that either have disclosed, DN soundly defeated Raymer heads up at the National Heads Up Poker ChampionshipThere are even arguements (although they are questionable as strategy changes somewhat at later levels of tournaments) against the single metric you claim makes a Raymer better. DN outlasted more people in the WSOP Main Event this year than Raymer did when he won in 2004. That's not to say that Raymer couldn't have won in a larger field, but it is something for you to consider.By your same arguement, you should go ahead and call Joseph Hachem a better player than Doyle Brunson and Chip Reese, because he won against an even bigger field than raymer.

[NicksDad1970 0]

I think to most people claiming that a world champion is better than someone who is not a world champion is at the very least an arguable position and far from retarded. You seem to be very dogmatic on this point. If I understand you correctly, you are discounting Raymer's accomplishment as an abberation of luck. On that basis, poker is simply luck and then you are correct that it is pointless to argue, because we might as well argue who is the best bingo player.

I think Greg is a very good player. The year he won was his 3rd year playing in the WSOP ME. I think he's a great ambassador for poker. I've also thought Greg was a very kind person, at least he was to me. But if he's a better poker player than DN he's got a long way to go to prove it. If winning the ME was the only thing he had done then it would be easy to say he's a one hit wonder. But he's done great in other tourneys as well. He just hasn't been playing "in the light" as long as Daniel.I like the other poster who said if you came here saying Chip was better than there would be a much better argument (obviously IMHO). Not because I know but because poker as a community says Chip is one of the best ever. There are some people that would say DN is actually better than god but I'm being as honest as I can be. go to google and type in "Negreanu hendon mob and you'll see a list of cashes 3 miles long.Time will tell who is the better one of the two. But thus far DN has a track record of one of the best.From what I know about Greg he would be the first to agree with about everything I've said. But I have been wrong many times before so who knows?